flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
mindcooler 24 Oct 2010, 08:59
Where can you check minimum operating system for WinAPI calls nowadays? MSDN has set all to 2000+ when they dropped 9x support.. :/
..and I'm pretty sure you could create windows before w2k. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms632679%28VS.85%29.aspx _________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
vid 24 Oct 2010, 10:37
Try to look for old SDK somewhere.
|
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler 24 Oct 2010, 15:36
vid, Can't seem to find any old Platform SDKs, going to check out the latest one.
baldr, I don't understand your reply. _________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
baldr 24 Oct 2010, 15:41
mindcooler,
It happens. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
vid 24 Oct 2010, 15:44
Things like this doesn't work anymore?
|
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler 24 Oct 2010, 15:45
So I guess I should try to find an SDK from 1998-2000 to see which calls are 9x+?
|
|||
![]() |
|
b1528932 24 Oct 2010, 15:54
just download windows 95 and run it under hypervisor, get all dlls and dump their exported names.
|
|||
![]() |
|
f0dder 24 Oct 2010, 16:15
b1528932 wrote: just download windows 95 and run it under hypervisor, get all dlls and dump their exported names. You'll probably want to find the last .chm release of the PlatformSDK if you need to support older versions of Windows... and good lucking finding those anywhere official >_<. There's a post either here or at asmcommunity mentioning the exact version of the last .chm version, but I couldn't find the post with "I'm a bit preoccupied with other stuff" lazy searches, and last time I went hunting Microsoft had pulled all the .chm PSDK downloads offline. I have one of the later (but possibly not the latest) .chm PSDKs lying around in old backup archives; if not available elsewhere, I could probably put it on rapidshare or wherever; probably breaches the end-user license, but I doubt anybody would really care. _________________ carpe noctem |
|||
![]() |
|
vid 24 Oct 2010, 16:19
Quote: So I guess I should try to find an SDK from 1998-2000 to see which calls are 9x+? 2003 SDK should still have 9x compatibility information, shouldn't it? But I agree f0dders way would be the best - those .chm PSDK docs were the best thing, back then. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler 24 Oct 2010, 17:02
Isn't the fasm shipped includes 9x only? Perhaps I can use them as a reference.
|
|||
![]() |
|
baldr 24 Oct 2010, 19:02
mindcooler,
Some alignment issues, and you're done. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler 25 Oct 2010, 06:59
Alignment issues?
|
|||
![]() |
|
baldr 25 Oct 2010, 15:49
mindcooler,
Straightforward translation of structures from C headers to fasm often disregards alignment requirements for multi-byte fields and padding of structure to meet sizeof requirements. |
|||
![]() |
|
SFeLi 26 Oct 2010, 06:01
vid wrote: 2003 SDK should still have 9x compatibility information, shouldn't it? Yes, 2003 SDK contains all needed information about 9x and despite beeing .hxs not .chm, it works fine on my 9x machine. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler 26 Oct 2010, 12:34
OK, I'm giving 2003 a shot
_________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2025, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.